Could Anyone Please Help? Thanks

I have been using rose so far for part 2, and have a few questions 1) Is it ok to show public private protected for methods as symbols? That's the way rose does it and I cant seem to change it. 2) Do we have to show full signature of methods? Because my class diagram is huge with every method's signature in it. 3) why is the assignment giving so much details to xml-rpc as we do not have to implement the solutions but simply represent a class that communicates with transmaster? Am I missing something here? Many thanks.

The directions for the assignment imply that you don't need to make your class diagram that complicated. It sounds like what you are doing is closer to pseudocoding than architecting. What's wrong with giving a lot of details on the XML-RPC API? A lot of companies will dig up miscellaneous documents of that sort to show to consultants. I don't know all that much about Rose, but I did indicate +/- on some methods, I think.

Showing method accessibility as symbols is standard UML. So not only is it allowed, it is required.

Bagwan Mehrat
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 26, 2002
Posts: 119

posted Apr 06, 2002 23:59:00

0

Hello, Christopher, Are you sure that the UML absolutely allows zero flexibility when it comes to including the visibility symbol? That seems to go against some of the philosophy of UML. Doubly so in the case of an architect. My reference when I did the project was UML Distilled, which doesn't have +/-/# in their example class diagrams, though it is mentioned as part of the full function syntax for class diagrams.

galay
Greenhorn

Joined: Apr 06, 2002
Posts: 2

posted Apr 08, 2002 20:00:00

0

Thanks for the input. So I take it that methods does not have to include full signature since this will be to complex, if anyone else have comments please advise! Also, the symbols I am talking about is not +/-, but rose's special symbols. I dont know if they are standard UML ones but it's the ones with a lock next to it or a key etc. Any ideas? Anyone used rose for this assignments. Once again, thank you.

Chris Mathews
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 18, 2001
Posts: 2712

posted Apr 08, 2002 20:04:00

0

This makes more sense. I thought that you were talking about the standard UML symbols for visibility. I have never used Rose so I can't help you with your question though I would think that Rational being who they are would have to support standard UML in Rose.

Chris Mathews
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 18, 2001
Posts: 2712

posted Apr 08, 2002 20:09:00

0

Bagwan, Visibility is not required to be specified in UML but if it is specified then you should be using the standard symbols of +,-,#,and ~. Generally if visibility is not specified it is assumed to be private for attributes and public for methods.